Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Retreater" data-source="post: 8173673" data-attributes="member: 42040">The primary difference I've noticed is in the balance. 4e is very well balanced. PF2 is swingy - and a character can drop in an instant on a failed save or a critical hit (which are very, very common). In 4e the monsters are designed with the role the DM needs them to play in the encounter. Like if you know you want an enemy to befuddle and confuse the opponents while his brutes smash away on the heroes, that is all clearly spelled out in the monster description, and they do it well. Monsters have a handful of useful, colorful abilities that are clearly listed on their stats sheet without you needing to look up spells, buffs, etc. I could run 4e completely smashed (and often did after a few pints with my friends). PF2 requires utmost concentration, can't even have my dog in the room when I'm running it. The tactics of 4e "just work." Movement and measurement of effects is simple. Spells/powers are straightforward. For PF2, it seems a grafted-on feature on the crumbling chassis of 3.x/PF.</blockquote>